2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.10.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A benchmark study of automated intra-retinal cyst segmentation algorithms using optical coherence tomography B-scans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The AURA toolkit is only able to segment surfaces, so we compared our MME segmentation results with another state-of-the-art random forest based methods proposed by Lang et al [40]. A benchmark study of intra-retina cysts segmentation by Girish et al [41] compared seven cysts segmentation algorithms, and the method of Lang et al [40] achieved the top ranking. Since the AURA toolkit [18] is not able to segment MMEs and Lang's MME method [40] has no retinal surface segmentation method, we compared our surface segmentation accuracy with the AURA toolkit and our MME segmentation accuracy with Lang's MME method using two separate data sets.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The AURA toolkit is only able to segment surfaces, so we compared our MME segmentation results with another state-of-the-art random forest based methods proposed by Lang et al [40]. A benchmark study of intra-retina cysts segmentation by Girish et al [41] compared seven cysts segmentation algorithms, and the method of Lang et al [40] achieved the top ranking. Since the AURA toolkit [18] is not able to segment MMEs and Lang's MME method [40] has no retinal surface segmentation method, we compared our surface segmentation accuracy with the AURA toolkit and our MME segmentation accuracy with Lang's MME method using two separate data sets.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The AURA toolkit is not able to segment MMEs; thus, we compared our method with Lang et al's MME segmentation method [40], which won a recent benchmark study on retinal cyst segmentation [41]. Our MME cohort consists of twelve MS subjects, each of whom had a 3D macular OCT acquired on a Spectralis system, with each 3D scan containing 49 B-scans.…”
Section: Mme Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although relatively poor results were reported in a private dataset containing Cirrus SD-OCT volumes, the method achieved comparable results in the DME dataset used by a previously discussed method [37]. Finally, in a recent benchmark study, several methods for IRC segmentation were compared and evaluated in a publicly available dataset [46]. Unfortunately, only data from two of the four SD-OCT devices present in the dataset were included for analysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It is specified the type of learning followed (supervised if labeled samples were used to train the method and unsupervised if the methodology is capable of separate the classes without labeled examples), the type of algorithm (semiautomatic if it needs the intervention of the user to generate the result, automatic if no further input is needed), type of pathology the system was tested with (if specified by the authors) and the knowledge domain that the methodology analyzes to generate the final result (2D if only features from a scan are used at a time and 3D if features from multiple consecutive OCT scans are considered). As the reader can see, the state of the art is currently following a classical segmentation paradigm, obtaining satisfactory results (as shown, for example, in the benchmarking test by Girish et al [36]) even with recent deep learning approximations. Nonetheless, an accurate segmentation is not always attainable in the case of retinal fluid accumulations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%